« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

ObamaCare Nuclear Option Deal Close

Behind closed doors, the Obama Administration, House and Senate Democrat leaders are cutting a secret deal on ObamaCare.  They have come up with a way to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare in the House without any House members having to vote directly on the bill.  Now The Hill is reporting that the House and Senate Parliamentarians are helping to advise Democrats on how to pass ObamaCare.  When will the self proclaimed most ethical Congress in history start acting ethical and honest?  This 111th Congress has proven, to date, to be the most secretive, non-transparent and devious Congress in recent history.

I explained in a blog on The Foundry yesterday the unethical procedure being used to pass ObamaCare:

House members have come up with a unique way to structure a vote that attempts to avoid the House voting on legislation before it goes to the President.  First, the House Budget Committee will report out a reconciliation bill.  It is unclear as to whether the Stupak Amendment will be added.  This reconciliation measure would be reported for consideration by the House of Representatives as a whole.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would then package the Senate passed Obamacare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one measure.  The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote. 

This seems to be a violation of the constitutional requirement of Article 1, Section 7.  The Constitution states in part “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States.”  The House will avoid a direct vote on the Senate passed ObamaCare by passing a self-executing rule that deems ObamaCare to be passed, if the House approves the rule setting up debate on ObamaCare.  Under the rule if the reconciliation measure passes, then the Senate passed ObamaCare bill will be deemed to have passed the House without a vote.

There is precedent in the House for self-executing rules.  In 2007, the House to pass a self-executing rule during the debate on a War Supplemental.  Also, during the budget process over the past few years, the House has inserted language into the annual budget resolutions that ”deems” as passed a debt limit increase.  This type of rule allows the debt limit to pass the House without a vote and as similar rule would allow teh Senate version of ObamaCare to pass without a vote. 

Late last night, The Hill reported that “Democrats Nearing Deal on Reconciliation”:

House and Senate Democratic leaders and White House officials were optimistic Wednesday evening that they were nearing a deal on a reconciliation package that would smooth the way for them to finally complete health care reform.  Congressional leaders and senior administration officials met in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office late in the day to hammer out a deal on reconciliation, meant to act as a sidecar of adjustments to the original $871 billion Senate-passed health care reform bill.

This meeting was not transparent and not open to the public.  Pelosi was behind closed doors in order to cut a deal on a reconciliation measure that the House may consider in the next week or two.  Yet again, Democrat leaders have used a closed door secret procedure to craft legislation to impose on Americans.

House Democratic leaders will walk their rank and file through portions of the package in a Thursday morning meeting, a leadership aide said.

This means that only Democrat elites have been part of this negotiation.  Not until later today will the House Democrat caucus be allowed to see the reconciliation measure.  Republicans need not apply, because they will not be allowed to see the reconciliation measure, until Democrats say so.  And for your average American who will have to live under this new health care government run regime, you are not allowed to participate in the legislative process at all.

Reid declined to talk specifics as he exited the meeting. But he sounded optimistic that Democratic leaders were on the verge of a deal on the reconciliation package.  “We are making progress. A lot of decisions were made,” Reid said. “I really do believe that the goal we’ve been seeking for such a long time — health care reform — is going to be done. We don’t have it all worked out, but we made a lot of progress.”  Reid refused to speculate on a deadline for reaching a deal. President Barack Obama has said he’d like Congress to get health care done this month, and lawmakers are set to head out on a two-week recess beginning March 26.

This story in The Hill indicates that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is involved in the negotiations.  We know that no Republican Senators were allowed to participate in this negotiation.  There is a big shocker at the end of this story in The Hill.

Sources said the House and Senate Parliamentarians also attended the meeting to advise on reconciliation rules.

Stop the press!  If this report is true, this could be a major scandal for the House and Senate Parliamentarians.  They are supposed to be dispassionate umpires.  Any appearance of the Parliamentarian gaming the system to aid one side to beat the rules should be denounced by all sides. 

This was a very political and partisan strategy meeting with representatives of the White House, Democrat Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Leader Reid.  Even if these Parliamentarians were not cheating the system by giving Democrats tips on how to bend the rules, the secrecy of the meeting should have been reason enough for the Senate Parliamentarian and his House counterpart to run for the exit.  If Republicans lose every procedural objection during the reconcilation debate, they have a strong argument that the parliamentarians should recuse themselves from this proceeding because of a strong appearance of impropriety. 

COMMENTS

  • bk

    Yesterday Pelosi dumped Charlie Melancon off the House Budget Committee and added Dennis Moore in his place. She’s not taking any chances of problems there, replacing a guy who voted for the Stupak amendment and against PelosiCare with a guy who voted with Nancy on both.

    In a total coincidence of course, Melancon is running against Vitter and so has to act as conservative as possible, while Moore is retiring and so has nothing to lose regardless of how he votes.

    • bk
  • DefendUSA

    I cannot believe what I am seeing. Corruption, lies and deceit. The Chicago way, and it “only” took 14 months.

    Does treason come to mind?

  • saltlick

    I plan to fly my flag at half-mast. My neighbors will notice. I’m one of those people who only puts the flag out on designated holidays.

  • oklahomajon

    I think Nancy want us too be like the U.S.S.R.where she is the Secertary General and she listens to nobody

    • Next93

      Because, darn it, democracy is too important to trust to the will of the little people.

  • fairtaxguy

    in the news today?

    • partyof1

      .

    • tngal

      Just waiting on the CBO scores which are expected out today. Once the scores come out, expect movement on the hill.

    • Next93

      That sounds so much nicer than “naked power grab”.

      • writeblock

        It’s an attempt to change the nature of the Senate bill–outside of the normal process for doing this. The Senate bill is a comprehensive one. The reconciliation procedure would deal with a package of budgetary changes, not all of which would pass muster. Abortion would not even be among these. How would passage of some of the items be tantamount to passage of a comprehensive Senate bill? Makes no rational sense at all. I don’t see how parliamentarians would ever approve of this.

        • azred

          When have you ever heard one once of rational dialogue from Obama, Reid or Pelosi? They are not rational, therefor they will not do rational things.

  • http://todaysasbestos.wordpress.com scotteiland

    and the Democrats are going to use a parliamentary trick to pass such a massive bill that the public doesn’t want, two things immediately come to mind:

    1. The Democrats are going to have their butts kicked even harder than we imagined pre-Scott Brown in the midterms, especially in the House.

    2. The already-strong argument that the bill is unconstitutional is even more potent.

    I’m so ANGRY about this I can barely see straight. Where are we, Venezuela?

    • Next93

      Best case scenario for them appears to be passing this steaming pile and having the SCOTUS declare it unconstitutional.

      That way they can tell the nutroots that they actually passed health care, they can (try to) say “no harm, no foul” to seniors and the unions, they don’t have this albatross hanging around thier necks for generations to come, and the Affirmative-Action President (who’s already taken pot shots at the SCOTUS) can claim to have passed his signature legislation.

      • cwilson

        .

  • vamoose

    Minority Leader Boehner needs to ask the parliamentarian what he was asked to pass judgment on when in secret session with the Dem cabal. Since the parliamentarian works for the entire house in a (supposedly) impartial manner, he should explain what went on procedurally. If the parliamentarian refuses, then he is acting as a co-conspirator.

    • tngal

      Because the rule is being prepared by House rules chairwoman Louise Slaughter, they’re dubbing it the Slaughter Solution. She apparently knows how to write rules to make them fly. Boehner’s not happy with it that’s for sure.

  • stigmo

    But it appears to me to be CLEARLY unconstitutional. Am I missing something? Is there a chance in heck that this would hold up in court?

    • mbecker908
  • mbecker908

    My only question is what the reaction of steadfast bi-partisan jerks like McCain, Graham, etal will be. And not so much on this bill, but down the road on McGrahamnisty and Crap&Trade.

  • RealQuiet

    If the House and Senate Parliamentarians attended this meeting, then Darling is right. The GOP should demand that the parliamentarians recuse themselves or Boehner and McConnell should demand a meeting with them right away to see what is going down. It is becoming real apparent what the Democrats are trying to pull off. They know they can’t pass the Senate bill in the House so they are trying to change the rules and deemed it “passed” without the final House vote which is REQUIRED. They want this passing before the Easter recess and they are trying to skirt everything in the book to do it. The parliamentarians SHOULD NOT have been at that meeting at all. They are now no longer can have the image that they are impartial. What this is going to do open the door to is legal challenges for this entire “passed” bill to be thrown out via the court system as it won’t pass constitutional muster. At the very least, a petitioner could file for injunctory relief and prevent health care from going into effect until this is resolved by the courts. Also, states are going to thumb their nose at this. This is going to get bad.

    • yoyo

      Sounds like SOP and sadly enough, that procedure is known as “SSDD”.

      This “triple-stick” Congress won’t be known as the 111th, it will be known as “Three Strikes & You’re Out” Congress.

      Who are the Parliamentarians, anyhow? What are their damn phone numbers? Fax lines? Where are their constituents – WAIT! As Parliamentarians, ALL OF US are their constituents.

      Let’s light’em up!

      • bk

        except Republicans.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    House Democrats still need the Stupak amendment, and Senate Democrats still don’t want a public option.

  • partyof1

    if Pelosi can rule by decree?

  • Mayhem

    They can pull this crap all they want and Obama can sign it as many times as he wants, but it will not be law. The courts will not put up with this kind of legislative cheating. We’ve gone beyond possible “misuse” of reconciliation to outright violation of the constitution.

    This bill will not be law.

    • bk

      Yeah we can certainly trust them to be looking out for us.

      Like Becker said above or elsewhere, whatever they can get by Kennedy they can pull off.

      • Next93

        I’ve heard that the Kelo decision, under the hood, was really a states rights issue; it wasn’t whether or not the state acted within within the limits of its own consitution, but that the federal government didn’t have the power to override the state on the matter.

  • mdavt

    If they really choose to go down this road then it will be the ruin of the Democrat Party. The anger, and resulting political actions, will make the Tea Parties and Town Hall’s seem like birthday parties for 6-yr olds.

  • pfish

    by literally re-writing the rules so as to violate the Constitution in order to pass this bill?

    When we take over both houses (and we will), what is to prevent Republicans to re-write the rules to declare any unconstitutional law to be null and void?

    In other words, if they can pass it by fiat and destroy the rules in the process then why not roll it back by fiat? Now that the rules are broken?

    • Next93

      If they can re-write the rules so as to violate the constitution, what’s to keep the next congress (whoever controls it) from outlawing dissent?

      These morons in congress seem to feel that the consitution only applies when the “bad men” are in power. I just don’t understand how you can be this ignorant of both history and civics and still manage to get elected.
      They raill about the “greed and corruption” of big companies, and use that to call for government control of our lives, as though there’s never been an instance of corrupt or greedy government.

      You think the big, bad insurance companies are cold, uncaring, and don’t answer to the will of the consumers? Welll, then the obvious answer is to replace them with a massive monolithic bureacracy that has a monopoly on the use of power and can re-write the laws whenever they become inconvenient, whether the people of this country want it or not.

  • mmcan

    Another blatant example showing that Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

    I’m seeing more and more sentiment like this Letter To The Editors from the host at Sipsey Street Irregulars (a GREAT blog to frequent),…

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/letter-to-editor-is-health-care-worth.html

    Moving to the Congo to seek more transparent and ethical leadership.

  • partyof1

    tell him to take one last look at America before it’s swallowed by the black fetid waters of socialism.

    …my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder – there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters – and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the “House of Usher .”

    I’m going to make some phone calls and donations. Always makes me feel better.

    • cari

      He’s been so optimistic during this process. Is there any hope now?

      • writeblock

        …from the left. I don’t think this will happen. It sounds too bizarre. They can’t have it both ways. Either the amendments are a part of the original bill and thus change the bill so that it must be returned to the Senate to face a filibuster, or it’s not-a-part of the original bill, in which case the original bill has yet to be voted upon in the House. No way this can work.

        • earlgrey

          the National Review blog it can happen. Also, even if they strip out the abortion protection in reconciliation, Stupak & co. can go on record as opposing abortion and still get Obamacare. It gives all the Dem reps cover for supporting a bad bill. I am just not sure why no one saw this coming.

  • jccbin
  • Spartan4Life

    I always figured they would find a way to pass this monstrosity, the Constitution be damned!

    Now it looks like they have found a way with the willing(corrupt) cooperation of some parliamentarians who are probably so scared of the menopausal Pelosi that they probably spend half their day licking her boots just to keep them clean.

    I think they are going to win because nobody on our side seems to have any way to stop them. Now I am sad because I see what I have known for some time, that our great country has become a cesspool of corruption run by political hacks and union thugs. All that it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do not near enough apparently.

    For shame.

    • JSobieski

      how many false “HCR is going to pass” stories have you read in the past 12 months?

    • Next93

      It’s not that good men didn’t do enough. It was that “good” men did too much.

      We allowed people with “good intentions” to nibble away at our freedoms, one small bit at a time, out of some warped idea that government exists to “take care of people”. Compassionate conservatism was at least as much to blame as the Progressive’s universal government mentality.

      When the next generation of free men establish “America 2.0″, I really hope they structure thier constitution so that thier descendents understnad that it’s not the government’s job to take care of people, that government charity is theft, that “compassion” issues from the individual and not the collective, and that no one has a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

  • JSobieski

    Even if this bogus procedure is used, it has to be used with respect to language that can satisfy both the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the House, which means nothing gets through.

    Stupak takes (or apparently takes) Obama at his word that Obama wants to sustain the Hyde Amendment, but since there is no such intention, I don’t think the procedure matters.

    There is no language that Pelosi or Obama will support that Stupak would find acceptable.

    For this to go through, Obama would need to throw pro-choice activitsts under the bus, and I don’t see that happening.

    • earlgrey

      He just needs a fig leaf to cave. Remember how much we counted on Ben Nelson?

      • JSobieski

        Stupak already got Pelosi to buckle once.

        If Stupak buckles, HCR passes.

        Stupak is a big government lib, the guy actually has some integrity.

  • WarEagle01

    Voting “aye” on this rule is a vote for the Senate bill . I still don’t see how this corrupt, deplorable action gets any Democrat off the hook.

    • stigmo

      if they didn’t have the votes to make it work.

      • JSobieski

        unless they didn’t have the votes.

        • stigmo

          That they’d get the CBO score today and get to work.

          • JSobieski

            Evidence of lack of votes: the House leadership has denounced the Easter “deadline”

          • JSobieski

            Your understanding is to heavily influenced by what Obama et al say. If their statements were even close to being true, this thing would have passed in August 2009.

  • Dr. Botkin

    Just checked it out, http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-guess-that-someone-in-federal.html

    • mmcan

      Is a great website. I’ve been reading it for some time now, as well as many of the links and the chapters from a book the blog’s host has been writing (“Absolved”, it is great reading).

      I used to think the tone on this and many other sites was harsh and slightly paranoid. Now I think they’re prescient and circumspect, and have been the entire time I was catching up to knowing the way things really are, and how they may very well be. It’s no longer “Paranoid” to contemplate and fear the abusive and overarching power of the govt. Instead, it’s “Naive” to keep one’s head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the events leading us farther towards the oppressive left.

      RE jccbin’s statement about buying ammo,… Buy even more. It’s like a parachute. Rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Especially as civil unrest, and worse, looms.

      When the general population understands that the electoral process of representative governments no longer represents them, and those in control are protecting themselves from getting booted via future elections (consider ACORN and its motives, and malfeasances, as well as McCain Feingold,…), the SHTF scenario draws closer and closer.

      • DefendUSA

        ” We” thought we saw it coming, but wanted to believe our leaders were working for us. Sadly, no.

        And you are right-
        Once you know what you’re dealing with and you get it, you can fight back. The liberal friends I have are in for a rude awakening. Boy, howdy. They are thinking everything is sweetness and light…it would suck to be them.

  • K James

    I’m pretty sure they still have to vote on a) the rules change

    And then b) the bill with reconciliation “attached” to it.

    e.g. They vote to change the rules to consider the senate bill “passed” just so they can debate on the reconciliation package to the bill. This keeps them from spinning their wheels for the next two weeks because it’s obvious that they don’t have the votes to pass the senate bill outright.

    This way, they can work in the reconciliation bill with the senate leaders providing “counsel” on what would clear the senate and what wouldn’t. I have no doubt that this will be done in secret with no input from Republicans or “Blue Dogs”

    If they can come to an agreement with the senate members “advising” on the reconciliation bill, then they can have a vote in the house officially passing both the senate bill and reconciliation package in a normal floor vote. Then it is sent to the senate where is has to clear all of the procedural hurdles that Republicans and Pro-Choice dems will throw at it.

    The other obvious roadblock for Nanzi Pelosi getting language into the reconciliation bill that will satisfy a majority of both houses regarding abortion, public option, etc. Not to mention they now want to throw this student loan nationalization into it as well.

    That’s just how I see it, I could be wrong though. I’ll be hitting F5 on the front page to see what Dan Perrin says. :)

    • earlgrey

      change, but for different reasons.

  • msctex

    These folks are in no way constrained by fact, Truth, reality, or any other inconvenient abstract that stands between them and what they think they want. They are to the point they feel they must pass something, and deal with the results later. So as someone noted already, they may well be counting upon the SCOTUS to undo the damage, and then throw up their hands about the partisan nature of the system while moving on to fail elsewhere. Let’s put it this way: even if they pass something, does anyone believe what they pass will withstand even the first glance of a judge? There will be gaping holes of legality and function that we haven’t even had reason to yet consider. The idea is nonfunctional, and it’s proponents are incompetent.

  • jaydickb

    The House could wrap a reconciliation package around the Senate bill, but if it becomes one bill and is passed as one bill, then they have modified the Senate bill and the Senate would have to reconsider the whole thing.

    I guess the House could pass two bills simultaneously (the Senate bill and the reconciliation package) and the Senate could then consider only the reconciliation package. But the House has to pass either two bills or one bill; I don’t see an in between. But, if the Senate does nothing (quite possible), Obama can sign the Senate bill passed by the House and it becomes law.

    This is really bad. The Democrats need to pay a very heavy price for even considering this sort of rule twisting.

  • teresakoch

    regardless, there isn’t any bill even written right now, a reconciliation bill has to be approved by several different committees, and it would have to pass the House first, then go to the Senate for debate, then go to a conference committee, where Senator DeMint can do the same thing that he did before – require the House to pass the Senate’s version verbatim.

    And unless there is verbiage in the 2011 budget bill about reconciling this bill, I believe the language which allows them to reconcile the original bill expires very soon.

    They’re spinning their wheels…..

  • mavericktime

    I saw the Roll Call article posted on Real Clear Politics, but now I cannot get into the Roll Call website.

    It said that the Parliamentarian has ruled that Obama would have to sign the Senate bill first before any fixes were voted on.

    Perhaps there was a mistake in the reporting and that’s why they took it down.

    • mavericktime

      Patriotroom also reporting that the Parliamentarian has made a ruling and given the results to the Republican leadership verbally.

      • tngal

        Drudge and Hot Air both had it pinned back to Rollcall but its off those as well.

  • mavericktime

    http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

    • tngal

      Thanks mav for alerting that its back up and running. Based on the story it looks like there’s a clear path deeper into the healthcare maze. Just how many ways are there to skin this dead cat?

  • Brian Darling

    Roll Call reporting that “the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress? original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.” (source http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html ) Just so you know, this does not indicate that the game is over. This is the result of a leak and the Parliamentarian’s office would tell you that they have made no such “ruling.”
    If this report is true, it is very important. The parliamentarian’s opinion that the Dems current strategy violates the rules of reconcilation then they can’t pull the trigger on their strategy to get ObamaCare to the President’s desk by Easter. Now it appears they only have the “walk the plank” strategy available to bring up the Senate passed ObamaCare bill and get a vote.
    Don’t put it past them to come up with yet another crazy and complicated strategy to pass ObamaCare. It is not over.

  • Brian Darling

    Reports coming from Capitol Hill indicate that Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, was not at the secret secret meeting referenced in my post above.